Allowed

Vivek Yadav @ Sheru v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2025CRLA/1715/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal under Section 14-A(2) of the SC/ST Act against rejection of bail in a case involving BNS sections 64, 352, 351(2) and Section 3(2)(5). Considering medical opinion, victim's age discrepancy and period of incarceration, the High Court allowed the appeal and released the appellant on bail with conditions.

What did the court decide?

Impugned bail rejection order set aside; appellant released on bail on Rs. 25,000 bond and two like sureties with conditions including cooperation with trial, no tampering or intimidation, and presenc

Vivek Yadav @ Sheru Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Caste Atrocities | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:42682

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1715 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Vivek Yadav @ Sheru Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ramakar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,S.P. Singh Somvanshi,Shailesh Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Ramakar Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/victim.

¶7

The present appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 (in short "Act of 1989") against the impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1070 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(2) of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita (in short "B.N.S.") and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District - Sultanpur.

¶8

For the purposes of coming to the conclusion in the instant case, this Court considered the following facts.

¶9

(i) Against the victim, an FIR registered as Case Crime No. 488 of 2023 was lodged at PS- Gosainganj, District - Sultanpur on 08.12.2023 under Sections 302, 201 IPC and Seection 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989. According to this FIR, lodged by Ram Saren (father-in-law of the victim), the victim killed her husband namely Shiv Kumar.

¶10

(ii) According to learned counsel for the victim, the final report has been submitted.

¶11

(iii) After lodging of aforesaid FIR, the victim took a room on rent in premises/house of appellant.

¶12

(iv) According to case of the appellant, on coming to know about the Case Crime No. 488 of 2023 (Supra), lodged against the victim, the mother of the appellant asked the victim to vacate the tenanted portion of the house, therefore, some hot-

¶13

talk took place and thereafter, the victim vacated the tenanted portion of the house of the appellant.

¶14

(v) After vacating the tenant portion situated in the house of the appellant, an application dated 29.11.2024 under Section 173(4) BNSS was preferred before the concerned Magistrate and in terms of the order of Magistrate, the FIR No. 0048 (Supra) on 18.01.2025 at P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District - Sultanpur was lodged and in connection of the same, the appellant having criminal history of one case in which he is on bail which has been explained in paragraph 30 to the affidavit filed in support of appeal is in jail since 24.03.2025.

¶15

Based upon the aforesaid fact, it is stated that in relation to alleged offence, the victim lodged FIR No. 0048 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. though no offence was committed by the appellant, aged about 20 years, with the victim, aged about forty two years, which is apparent from Aadhar copy of the victim annexed as Annexure no.5 and in this regard, an incorrect statement has been made in the FIR by the victim as according to the FIR, at the time of alleged crime, the victim was aged about 30 years old.

¶16

It is further submitted that medical opinion does not support the story of prosecution.

¶17

Thus, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter. As such, appellant, who is in jail since 24.03.2025, is entitled for bail and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.

¶18

Learned A.G.A. for the State-respondent and Shri Shailesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.2/victim vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, they could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.

¶19

Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant-applicant, learned A.G.A., learned counsel for the victim, and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as application filed under Section 173(4) BNSS.

¶20

Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances particularly the medical opinion and the age of the victim as also the period of incarceration also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed .

¶21

Order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Sultanpur in Bail Application No. 1070 of 2025 arising out of Case Crime No. 48 of 2025, under Sections 64, 352, 351(2) of B.N.S. and Sections 3(2)(5) of Act of 1989, P.S. Kotwali Nagar, District - Sultanpur is set aside.

¶22

Let appellant Vivek Yadav @ Sheru , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-

¶23

(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.

¶24

(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. (iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).

¶25

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.

¶26

(v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶27

(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.

¶28

(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.

¶29

(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

¶30

In case of default of above conditions, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law

¶31

As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶32

Order Date :- 24.7.2025 Mohit Singh/-

¶33

Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vivek Yadav @ Sheru v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Yadav @ Sheru v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lok Nath Mishra Vs District and Session Judge Bahraich and Ors.

Ram Sanehi and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P.

Juvenile X , Thru. His Natural Guardian /Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Pramod Kumar Tiwari Vs Addl. District and Sessions Judge Court NO.9 Lucknow and Others

Ram Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Station Officer Maanpur Sitapur and Anr.

Sarvesh Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another